PNLC Meeting Minutes - Port Nelson
PNLC Meeting Minutes - Port Nelson
PNLC Meeting Minutes - Port Nelson
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Minutes</strong> <strong>Port</strong> Noise Liaison Committee #11<br />
Date: 3 Feb 2010<br />
Venue: <strong>Port</strong> <strong>Nelson</strong> Board Room<br />
Time:<br />
6pm<br />
Present: Bob Dickinson (Chair), Matt McDonald (PNL), Thomas Marchant (PNL), Digby Kynaston (PNL), Jacquetta Bell (PNL minutes);<br />
Bruce Robertson, Sue Thomas, Albert Hutterd (residents’ reps).<br />
Agenda Discussion Action Points Arising<br />
1. Previous<br />
minutes<br />
Sue reiterated her request for hard copy minutes. Clarification of who made the complaint re<br />
containers falling.<br />
Passed, Albert/Digby<br />
2. Matters arising Wind & containers: Sue said Enza crates are stacked in a zigzag formation, to resist wind?<br />
Albert thought this was to follow the contour of the road. Digby said this method would take up<br />
too much space with containers, would make movements more difficult and any change would<br />
affect existing infrastructure. Matt said containers were already stacked to maximise wind<br />
resistance; also port is subject to winds from a range of directions.<br />
Noise monitor is now mounted on cement silo, but there are some IT issues to sort out,<br />
reporting methods be sorted, calibrations to be done. Then NCC will need to sign off on<br />
position of monitor.<br />
Weather station also to be placed on silo, and will give data on wind speed etc.<br />
Question as to whether PNL offers weather information from Fairway Beacon to the public.<br />
3. Noise complaints Three calls since last meeting, all regarding night of 8 Dec, while JPO LEO and Spirit of<br />
Resolution were at MWS. Ian Northrop lodged two separate complaints. Lashing bars dropped<br />
onto deck whilst unloading Spirit of Resolution – discussion around dropping bars and need for<br />
person at the bottom to control landing. JPO LEO - extremely noisy overnight, short impact<br />
noise from container discharging.<br />
Mike Young rang the next day and said this was one of the noisiest nights he has ever had.<br />
Questioned whether new crane drivers were on for the night. Hatch lids being placed on top of<br />
each other on the vessel was the main source of noise.<br />
Digby showed supervisor’s noise log – benefit is in operators being aware of this random<br />
check. Thomas said continuous monitoring will remove ‘ifs and buts’. Sue asked what action is<br />
taken to encourage compliance. Digby explained the progressive warning/performance<br />
management system.<br />
Bob asked about failure to follow procedure on night of Dec 8. Digby said complaints don’t<br />
always go straight to supervisors. Reinforces need for calls to be made at the time.<br />
Noted that if calls go to NCC, they alert PNL.<br />
Question about why JPO LEO is noisy. It is big, but similar to Cap Capricorn. Has to be<br />
berthed at MWS, always comes on Sunday night - may add to the irritation factor.<br />
4. Annual Report Noise Variation states: “An annual summary of the activities of the <strong>Port</strong> Noise Liaison<br />
Committee taken from the minutes of the committee meetings is to be provided to owners of<br />
noise-affected properties. The summary to be provided to any member of public on request.”<br />
Thomas to action.<br />
Noise monitor show & tell<br />
at next meeting.<br />
Digby to look into<br />
providing weather<br />
information on PNL<br />
website.<br />
Sue to contact Mike and<br />
Ian suggest they put<br />
gatehouse number on<br />
speed dial so they can<br />
ring at the time noise<br />
occurs.<br />
Page 1 of 2
5 Stage 3<br />
contributions<br />
criteria.<br />
6 Update on<br />
mitigation work<br />
Sue believed this requirement was being met through the residents’ newsletter. Discussion<br />
over whether the reporting should be done by the residents’ reps or from the committee.<br />
Concluded that residents’ reporting had been done under interim provisions.<br />
Thomas had put some highlights together from the minutes. Question about whether minutes<br />
are available online – no, but they could be.<br />
Sue suggested a newsy letter would be read more. Jacq suggested a newsy letter, with the<br />
summary of the minutes as an attachment – general agreement that this would provide<br />
readability and meet the requirements of the Variation.<br />
Thomas tabled the factors that must be considered when assessing applications for assistance<br />
with acoustic treatment: These include internal noise levels and effect of <strong>Port</strong> Noise on the<br />
occupiers’ internal enjoyment of the property – Matt concerned about vagueness of this.<br />
PNL is currently providing an acoustic report on request, with the committee making a<br />
recommendation on work to be done and payment.<br />
With Stage 3 properties the port noise liaison committee has to provide technical advice and<br />
the port operator up to 50% of acoustic treatment costs. Bob said in effect Stage 3 properties<br />
would have to be treated in much the same way as Stage 2: i.e. request from owner, report<br />
from expert, then it comes to the committee, they decide if PNL should pay 50% - seen as<br />
norm rather than maximum. Sue said there wouldn’t be a deluge, Bob said the 50% hurdle<br />
would put a lot of people off. Sue said people would be amenable to negotiation over priority<br />
of work and cost.<br />
Decided the criteria would remain in place, and Stage 3 would be treated the same as Stage 2,<br />
the difference being that residents initiate request for assistance. Sue said new residents are<br />
likely to be the ones seeking help. Noted that the committee will need to record all requests<br />
from Stage 3 properties.<br />
Question from Bruce re a residents house. The report says the windows need to be made to fit<br />
better, but if she wants double glazing it will be at her cost over and above the cost of single<br />
glazing to meet noise requirements.<br />
Thomas tabled update.<br />
Stage 1: Work done on a Queens Rd property, at less cost than original plans indicated, may<br />
need more tweaks to ventilation and ceiling insulation. Further readings to be taken.<br />
Stage 2: Nevil has been down and 5 acoustic reports are due in (bringing total to 21 out of 41).<br />
Work is proceeding as agreed on three properties and residents are happy.<br />
Stage 3: seven reports have been done. One resident wants to go ahead with work on their<br />
porch. Sue’s house available as demonstration of noise mitigation treatment.<br />
7 AOB Residents’ reps noted they indicated the shift in attitude from <strong>Port</strong> <strong>Nelson</strong>.<br />
<strong>Meeting</strong> closed at 7.40. Next meeting, TBC, PNL boardroom, 1800hrs.<br />
Thomas to look into<br />
putting the minutes of the<br />
committee meetings on<br />
PNL website.<br />
Sue to assist Thomas with<br />
writing the newsy covering<br />
letter.<br />
Page 2 of 2